Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 05/20/2014
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 May 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Bell, L. Murphy, B. Bouchard, R. Jeffers 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted it has been tradition for the DRB not to meet on National Night Out which is 5 August this year. Members agreed not to meet on that night. 2. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft., 275 seat, standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 seat restaurant building and constructing a 9,200 sq. ft. retail & restaurant building, 1 Dorset Street: Ms. Bell said they have overcome several obstacles. She showed a plan of the entire property with the existing building and the lease line of the property under consideration. There are currently 80 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to bring one building forward to front on Williston Road and another to front on Dorset Street. The former would be for the restaurant; the other would be retail. A front yard setback waiver is being requested from 50 feet to 10 feet for both buildings. This will allow connection to sidewalks on both streets. There is also a request for a waiver for the percentage of impervious coverage from the required 30%. Existing coverage is 54.9% from Dorset Street and they are asking for 55%; existing coverage on Williston Rd. was 89% and they are asking for 97%. The restaurant will have an outdoor seating component. There will be 72 parking spaces, which is the required number. Ms. Bell showed the proposed location of the dumpster which will be sized to accommodate composting The stormwater plan has been reviewed by Tom DiPietro and by the Agency of Natural Resources. Ms. Bell showed the location of the 2 stormwater facilities. Mr. Behr asked if there is any way to give up a few parking spaces to create a “plaza” between the 2 buildings so pedestrians will not have to mingle with cars moving in the parking lot. Ms. Bell said they will look at that possibility. No other issues were raised. 3. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-11-03 & Preliminary Plat Application #SD-11-51 of Farrell Real Estate for a planned unit development on 25.91 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 24 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 21 two-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MP-11-03 and #SD-11-51 to 15 July 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-09 of 372 Dorset, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,202 sq. ft. building used for radio and television studio use. The amendment consists of converting the building to general office use, 372 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had failed to display the required placard and suggested continuing the application to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-09 to 3 June 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 5-story, 63 unit, multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard said the parcel is located in the C‐2 District, just south of Willy Racine’s Jeep. There is a large swale over most of the property resulting in only 4.5 usable acres. The proposal is to build a 4-story, 63 unit project on the back of the lot. These would be rental units. 131 parking spaces are proposed. The building would have a basement with laundry, lounge, storage, and an indoor pool. They are requesting a height waiver from 35 feet to 48 feet, 6 feet of which is for the elevator penthouse. Mr. Bouchard said they will build the entry road to city standards and will provide an offer of dedication to the city. Mr. Belair suggested that the city would not take possession of the road until it can be connected to Green Mountain Drive in the future. The road will operate as a private road until then. Mr. Bouchard asked if they could possibly reduce parking by about 12-15 spaces so the people exiting from the parking will not be exiting onto what will become a road. Members had no issues with the height waiver as the building is not different from those around it. Mr. Bouchard said they are proposing a natural trail over the brook. He showed the concept of this. They will have to talk to the state about it. Mr. Belair said staff is suggesting an area for a dog-run. Mr. Bouchard said they can do that. Mr. Parsons asked if the wooded area will be kept intact. Mr. Bouchard said it will. Ms. Smith asked if there is any idea of what might go in the one acre. Mr. Bouchard said possibly a convenience store or some other retail. Mr. Belair noted there can be no new gas station within 1000 feet of an existing station. Mr. Bouchard said he thought they meet that requirement. Mr. Barritt wasn’t sure people in the apartments would like looking out on a gas station. Mr. Bouchard questioned the possibility of a turn lane on Rt. 7 as you come north. Mr. Belair said that is a state issue. Mr. Bouchard said they will talk with the state as it seems like a good idea. Mr. Bouchard said the building will be wood-framed, probably with balconies. They will present a rendering at the preliminary hearing. No other issues were raised. 6. Master Plan Application #MP-14-01 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved master plan for a multi-phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of specifying that for the approval of footprint lots for two-unit and three-unit multi-family dwellings the only review necessary would be final plat review, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers noted that the Master Plan contains many triplex lots which they convey to builders as a “chunk.” When they’re built, many have a big or small yard which changes the lot. Mr. Belair noted the developer doesn’t know where the building will be until the foundation is in. This change would eliminate an unnecessary process. Ms. Jeffers showed how the process happened in the past with a multi-faceted review. Mr. Belair said the land records will indicate lot lines would not be recognized by the LDRs but are there only for financing purposes. He added that he has no authority to do this administratively. The applicant reviewed a draft decision and was OK with it. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 15 April and 6 May 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 15 April (with the spelling of a name corrected) and 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: Mr. Belair gave members information on a planning workshop for which the city would pay the entry fee for any interested Board members to attend. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Clerk June 17, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD-14-13 1 SD_14_13_Halverson_amendment_May2014 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer, and Planner Temporary Assignment Lee Krohn, AICP RE: May 20, 2014 Agenda #2, Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-13, One Dorset Street DATE: May 16, 2014 Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 seat restaurant building and constructing a 8,666 sq. ft. retail & restaurant building and an 1,800 sq. ft. retail building, 1 Dorset Street. The differences from before in this revised plan are: Building A has been reduced in size by 61 sq. ft. to 8,666 sq. ft. The issue with the building being within the Interstate Highway Overlay District has been resolved. The dumpster location has been changed to place it further away from the hotel. The applicant has specified the setback waivers requested to allow both buildings to be 10 feet from both Williston Road and Dorset Street. A parking space waiver of five (5) spaces or 1.9% is now being requested. LEASE LINE Although a ground or land lease is proposed here, in a slightly different configuration than shown before, the property will still be considered one lot for purposes of planning and zoning (both legally, in terms regulatory requirements or limitations, as well as functionally, in terms of access, circulation, parking, etc). Thus, these lease lines are informational only, and not related to any aspect of regulatory review. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, Commercial – 1 Zoning District: Required Existing Proposed Minimum lot size: 40,000 sq ft 244,503 sq ft 244,503 sq ft Building coverage: 40% max 17.1% 17.6% Total coverage: 70% max 67.7% 67.2% Parking: 264 spaces 267 259 (72 on site) The basic dimensional requirements are satisfied. The applicant seeks waivers from standards for both the 30% coverage limit and the 50 foot building setback along both Dorset Street and Williston Road. Front yard coverage impact on Williston Road increases from 89% to 97.7%; and only slightly on Dorset Street, from 54.9% to 55%. Proposed setbacks for all new buildings are 10 feet, not 50 feet as the base standard indicates. The Board had indicated support previously for the setback waiver, as it helps to create a street presence, and other projects in the vicinity have been granted similar waivers toward the same goal. Staff supports both requests. PARKING The new parking requirement is 264 spaces and 259 spaces are proposed. As noted above, the applicant seeks a waiver of five (5) parking spaces, or 1.9% of that required. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that this new proposed plan satisfies the intent and standards of the LDRs, and recommends that the Board allow the project to proceed to preliminary and final plat review. Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Field Book:Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSHalvorsenDevelopmentOne Dorset StreetSouth Burlington, VTSite PlanC2-0205/08/20141"=20'12-052RMPSMM0FeetGraphic Scale20 20 40 60 80GENERAL NOTES:1. SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS ARE SHOWN FOR CLARITY. CONTRACTOR TO CONSULT WITH ENGINEER ANDSUPPLY BENDS, CLEANOUTS, ETC. AS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE PROPER CONNECTION BETWEENFOUNDATION WALL AND SEWER MAIN LINE.2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH ALL RELEVANT PARTIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOTLIMITED TO OWNER, ARCHITECT AND UTILITY COMPANIES) TO DETERMINE FINAL LAYOUT AND DESIGN.3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN WALKS, RAMPS AND DECKS BETWEEN BUILDINGS ANDPARKING LOTS IS PROVIDED BY THE ARCHITECT AND INCORPORATED INTO THE BUILDING DESIGN.4. ALL CURB STOP VALVES TO BE INSTALLED WITH ACCESS COVER AT FINISHED GRADE.5. ALL WATER LINE TAPS SHALL BE LIVE TAPS; EXISTING WATER LINE MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE DURINGCONNECTION, UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.6. REPLACE CURB, AND PAVEMENT AT ORIGINAL LOCATIONS AND GRADES EXCEPT AS NOTED FORCOORDINATION WITH NEW WALKS. RESTRIPE PARKING AS SHOWN.7. SEWER INVERTS FOR BUILDING, MANHOLES, AND GREASE TRAP WILL BE ESTABLISHED WITH FIELD VERIFICATIONFROM CONTRACTOR.8. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING STORMWATER CONVEYANCE.9. PAVEMENT WITHIN PROJECT SITE SHALL COMPLY WITH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL ON C8-01.APPLY PAVEMENT JOINT DETAIL ON C8-01, WITH PARKING LOT OVERLAY.10. FOR HEAVY SNOW EVENTS, SNOW WILL BE TRUCKED OFF-SITE.CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE) AND ARE INTENDED TO BE USED INCONJUNCTION WITH THE STANDARD GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, #C-700 PREPARED BY THE ENGINEERS JOINTCONTRACT DOCUMENTS COMMITTEE (EJCDC), LATEST EDITION. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE AT WWW.NSPE.ORG/EJCDC2. UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS: THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED BASED ONRESEARCH, UTILITY PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNER CONSISTENTWITH THE ORDINARY STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE DESIGNENGINEER.3. DIFFERING SUBSURFACE OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS: IF CONTRACTOR BELIEVES THAT ANY SUBSURFACE OR PHYSICAL CONDITION AT ORCONTIGUOUS TO THE SITE THAT IS UNCOVERED OR REVEALED EITHER: (1) IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY “TECHNICAL DATA”ON WHICH CONTRACTOR RELIED IS MATERIALLY INACCURATE; OR (2) IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE PLANS/CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; OR (3) DIFFERS MATERIALLY FROM THAT SHOWN OR INDICATED IN THE PLANS/CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; OR (4) IS OFAN UNUSUAL NATURE, AND DIFFERS MATERIALLY FROM CONDITIONS ORDINARILY ENCOUNTERED AND GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS INHERENTIN WORK OF THE CHARACTER PROVIDED FOR IN THE PLANS/CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; THEN CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY AFTER BECOMINGAWARE THEREOF AND BEFORE FURTHER DISTURBING THE SUBSURFACE OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OR PERFORMING ANY WORK IN CONNECTIONTHEREWITH (EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY), NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER ABOUT SUCH CONDITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT FURTHER DISTURBSUCH CONDITION OR PERFORM ANY WORK IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (EXCEPT AS AFORESAID) UNTIL RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ORDER TO DO SO.4. UTILITIES: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, CABLE, FIBER OPTIC ETC. ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THERESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY. ANY INFORMATION SHOWN BY TCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY (USUALLY TO ASSIST WITHPERMITTING). FINAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES. COMPLIANCEWITH EASEMENTS AND REGULATIONS (STATE AND LOCAL) ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY.5. DIGSAFE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH VERMONT STATE LAW (VSA TITLE 30 CHAPTER 86 AND PSB RULE 3,800) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE TO CONTACT DIGSAFE SYSTEMS, INC. “DIGSAFE”. AT LEAST 48 HOURS , EXCLUDING SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS,BUT NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE COMMENCING EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES, EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR PRE-MARKING THE SITE AND MAINTAINING DESIGNATED MARKINGS. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON DIGSAFE REQUIREMENTSSEE WWW.DIGSAFE.COM6. JOBSITE SAFETY: NEITHER THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE), NOR THE PRESENCE OF TCE OR ITSEMPLOYEES AND SUB CONSULTANTS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHALL RELIVE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ANY OTHER ENTITY OF THEIROBLIGATIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCE, TECHNIQUES ORPROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR PERFORMING, SUPERINTENDING OR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION INACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS REQUIRED BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCIES. TCEAND ITS PERSONNEL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OVER ANY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR OR OTHER ENTITY OR THEIREMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR WORK OR ANY HEALTH OR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. THE CLIENT AGREES THAT THE GENERALCONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR JOBSITE SAFETY, AND WARRANTS THAT THIS INTENT SHALL BE MADE EVIDENT IN THE CLIENT'SAGREEMENT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE CLIENT ALSO AGREES THAT THE CLIENT, TCE AND TCE'S CONSULTANTS SHALL BEINDEMNIFIED AND SHALL BE MADE ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY.7. CODES AND STANDARDS COMPLIANCE:TCE SHALL EXERCISE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY PROFESSIONAL CARE IN ITS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITHCODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES IN EFFECT. THE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SUCH REQUIREMENTS MAY BE SUBJECTTO VARIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS. TCE, THEREFORE, WILL ITS REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL EFFORTS AND JUDGMENT TOINTERPRET APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS AS THEY APPLY TO THE PROJECT. TCE, HOWEVER, CANNOT AND DOES NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEETHAT THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL INTERPRETATIONS OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS.8. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: TCE MAY VISIT THE PROJECT AT APPROPRIATE INTERVALS DURING CONSTRUCTION TO BECOME GENERALLYFAMILIAR WITH THE PROGRESS AND QUALITY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK AND TO DETERMINE IF THE WORK IS PRECEDING IN GENERALACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE OWNER HAS NOT RETAINED TCE TO MAKE DETAILED INSPECTIONS OR TO PROVIDEEXHAUSTIVE OR CONTINUOUS PROJECT REVIEW AND OBSERVATION SERVICES. TCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE PERFORMANCE OF, AND SHALLNOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR, THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF ANY CONTRACTOR, SUB-CONTRACTOR, SUPPLIER OR ANY OTHER ENTITYFURNISHING MATERIALS OR PERFORMING ANY WORK ON THE PROJECT. TCE SHALL NOT SUPERVISE, DIRECT OR HAVE CONTROL OVER THECONTRACTOR'S WORK NOR HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURESOF THE CONTRACTOR. IF THE OWNER DESIRES MORE EXTENSIVE PROJECT OBSERVATION OR FULL-TIME PROJECT REPRESENTATION, THE OWNERSHALL REQUEST SUCH SERVICES BE PROVIDED BY TCE AS ADDITIONAL SERVICES.9. UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE AREA SURVEYED.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER.10. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN ARE TO BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THEOWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THECONSTRUCTION.13. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.14. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE AND OPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.16. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK INACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS, LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS AND ALL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY REGULATIONS.17. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.18. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERFOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ON THE ITEM(S) IN QUESTION.19. ALL SYSTEM COMPONENTS (TANKS, PIPES, JOINTS) SHALL BE WATERTIGHT.LEGENDPROPOSEDEXISTINGWITH CURBPROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKSTREE LINESEWER MANHOLE (SMH)SEWER CLEANOUT (CO)CATCH BASIN (CB)TRANSFORMERMTC ORVALVE/CURBSTOPFIRE HYDRANT (HYD)END CAPUTILITY POLETELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALLUMINAIREPAVED DRIVE OR ROADUNDERGROUND POWERGDWSAND SERVICESSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSUNDERGROUNDTELEPHONENATURAL GASSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSSITE Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Field Book:Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSHalvorsenDevelopmentOne Dorset StreetSouth Burlington, VTOverall Site PlanC2-0105/08/20141"=20'12-052RMPSMM0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 120NOTES:1. OWNER: LARKIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLCLARKIN REAL ESTATE410 SHELBURNE ROADBURLINGTON, VT 05401-5039 APPLICANT: HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT1877 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 200BOCA RATON, FL 334322. ZONED:CI/IHO3. COVERAGE CALUCLATIONS: TOTAL PARCEL AREA 244,503 SFEXISTINGBUILDING 41,820 SF 17.1%PAVEMENT 107,810 SF 44.1%SIDEWALKS 15,954 SF 6.5%TOTAL IMPACTS165,584 SF67.7%FRONT YARD (WILLISTON RD.) 7,900 SFTOTAL IMPACT 7,035 SF 89.0%FRONT YARD (DORSET ST.) 26,870 SFTOTAL IMPACT 14,740 SF 54.9%PROPOSEDBUILDING 42,930 SF 17.6%PAVEMENT 100,255 SF 40.0%SIDEWALKS 20,934 SF 8.6%TOTAL IMPACTS164,119 SF67.2%FRONT YARD (WILLISTON RD.) 7,900 SFTOTAL IMPACT 7,718 SF 97.7%FRONT YARD (DORSET ST.) 26,870 SFTOTAL IMPACT 14,768 SF 55.0%FRONT YARD WAIVERREQUESTED4. PARKING REQUIRED: 89 ROOM HOTEL 89 SPACES8 EMPLOYEES 8 SPACES71 ROOM HOTEL 71 SPACES8 EMPLOYEES 8 SPACESRETAIL 43 SPACESRESTAURANT 27 SPACES 264 SPACES CURRENT EXISTING PARKING SD #12-33 267 SPACES (80 SPACES ON SITE) PROPOSED PARKING (THIS APPLICATION) 259 SPACES (72 SPACES ON SITE)5. PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM PLANENTITLED "BOUNDARY SURVEY-LARKIN TARRANT HOEHL PARTNERSHIP"BY KREBBS & LANSING CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED JAN. 13,1998, REVISED FEB. 2, 1998.A PLAN ENTITLED "ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR HALVORSENREAL ESTATE CORPORATION AND CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCECOMPANY SURVEY OF RESTAURANT GROUND LEASE" BY GREENERENGINEERING, P.C., DATED NOVEMBER 2012.6. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND UTILITIES INFORMATION FROM PLANENTITLED "UTILITY PLAN-HOWARD JOHNSON'S" BY KREBBS & LANSINGCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DATED DEC. 22, 1997, REVISED 3/20/98.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONSCONDUCTED BY TCE ON DECEMBER 6 , 2012.LOCATION MAPPROPOSED TRASH,RECYCLING &COMPOSTINGENCLOSURE ONCONCRETE PADAMENDEDGROUNDLEASE LINE50' BUILDINGSETBACKMALL ACCESS15' SETBACK 30'SETBACK50' BUILDINGSETBACKEXISTING DETENTION BASIN50' IHO 2 ZONE: INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY 2 (IHO2)ZONE: COMMERCIAL 1N/FFINARD SEARSN/FSTATE OF VERMONTU.S. ROUTE 2SNOW STORAGEPROPOSED LEASE LINEEXISTINGPARKING4" D.I.DORSET STREETWILLISTON ROADEXISTING TREE(TYP.)CHAIN LINKFENCESTATE OF VERMONT INTERSTATE 89 RAMP F EXIT 14EORIGINAL GROUN D LE ASEEXISTING RETAININGWALLEXISTING SIDEWALK50' BUILDINGSETBACKZONE: INTERSTATE HIGHWAYOVERLAY 2 (IHO2)ZONE: COMMERCIAL 1RESTAURANT2200 SFRETAIL2464 SFEXISTING HOTEL 71 ROOMSPROPOSED TREE(TYPICAL)RETAIL1800 SFRETAIL4002 SFOUTDOORPATIOSEATINGPROPOSEDBIKE RACK 317Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Field Book:Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSHalvorsenDevelopmentOne Dorset StreetSouth Burlington, VTExisting ConditionsC1-016/14/20131" = 20'2012052-1RMPDAB0FeetGraphic Scale20 20 40 60 80SURVEY NOTES:1. THE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN(S) IS TO DEPICTPERTINENT EXISTING CONDITIONS.2. ALL EXISTING SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A PLAN TITLED"ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR HALVORSEN REAL ESTATECORPORATION AND CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,SURVEY OF RESTAURANT GROUND LEASE" PREPARED BY GRENIERENGINEERING, DATED NOVEMBER 2012. THE ABOVE MENTIONEDPLAN WAS PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY AS WAS ADDITIONAL SITEINFORMATION FROM LLEWELLYN HOWLEY INCORPORATED. NOFIELD WORK WAS PERFORMED TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION.3. UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE AREASURVEYED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITYCONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THEENGINEER.PROJECT INFORMATION:1. OWNER OF RECORD: Larkin Family Partnership410 Shelburne RoadBurlington, VT 054012. TAX PARCEL ID: (Building) 0570-00001(Land) 0570-00001L3. PHYSICAL ADDRESS One Dorset Street OF PROPERTY: South Burlington, VT 054034. PARCEL SIZE: PARCEL AREA = 244,503 SQ. FT.LEASE AREA = 53,910 SQ. FT.5. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial District, Interstate Highway Overlay District, Traffic Overlay Zone 3APPLICANT:HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT1877 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 200BOCA RATON, FL 33432PHONE: (561) 367-9200LOCATION MAPLEGENDEXISTINGWITH CURBBUILDING SETBACKSTREE LINESEWER MANHOLE (SMH)SEWER CLEANOUT (CO)CATCH BASIN (CB)TRANSFORMERMTC ORVALVE/CURBSTOPFIRE HYDRANT (HYD)END CAPUTILITY POLETELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALLUMINAIREPAVED DRIVE OR ROADUNDERGROUND POWERTUPGDWSAND SERVICESSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSUNDERGROUNDTELEPHONENATURAL GASSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSSITENOTES:1. ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS ON DEC. 6, 2012.2. LOCATED DIG SAFE UTILITIES (VT. GAS SYSTEM, FIBER OPTIC, WATER,UNDERGROUND POWER & TELEPHONE) ON SEPT. 12, 2013. From: Eric Farrell [mailto:efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:07 PM To: ray Cc: Danielle Fisette Subject: RE: Spear Meadows Hi Ray, We are still working on some final details, so please extend our DRB meeting from May 20, 2014 to sometime in July. Dani, Please deliver a $50 check to Ray sometime tomorrow. Many thanks, Eric Eric F. Farrell efarrell@farrellrealestatevt.com FARRELL REAL ESTATE Mailing: PO Box 1335, Burlington, VT 05402‐1335 Physical: 875 Roosevelt Highway, Suite 120, Colchester, VT 05446 P: 802‐861‐3000 x12 F: 802‐861‐3003 C: 802‐343‐7055 "Prosperity means a healthy, peaceful life with good relationships and enough resources to be able to be a blessing to others." - Joel Osteen From: David Burke [mailto:dwburke@olearyburke.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:08 PM To: ray Cc: nc.smith@myfairpoint.net Subject: RE: Placard Ready - 37 Birch Street Ray: Please consider this a “Continuance” request. Let me know the new date (as soon as possible, please) and when the Placard is ready and we won’t forget it this time. David From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:58 PM To: David Burke Subject: RE: Placard Ready - 37 Birch Street David, I just realized that the placard was not picked up. In the past when this has happened the Board continues the meeting to allow the applicant to have the required public notice. You are welcome to attend the meeting and try to convince the Board to hear your application anyway, or you can request a continuation and I’ll prepare a new placard. What would you like to do? Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: David Burke [mailto:dwburke@olearyburke.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:14 PM To: ray Cc: nc.smith@myfairpoint.net Subject: RE: Placard Ready - 37 Birch Street Thanks Ray – will do! David From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:01 PM To: David Burke Subject: Placard Ready - 37 Birch Street Hi Dave, The above referenced application will be reviewed by the DRB on May 20th. Please stop by the office to pick up the placard which must be displayed on the property by May 9th. Thanks. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sket ch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: May 16, 2014 Application received: February 18, 2014 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-14-09 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES – 1690 SHELBURNE ROAD Agenda # 5 Meeting Date: May 20 2014 Applicant Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Contact Person Robert Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Owners Kurt V. Reichelt and Laura M. Reichelt Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a four-story, 63 unit, multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Lee Krohn, AICP. Planner Temporary Assistant, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on April 25, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Lot #1 Proposed Lot #2 Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit 398,271 sq. ft. 6322 sq. ft./unit 1.0 acres Max. Building Coverage 40% <1% 4.9% 0% Max. Overall Coverage 70% <1% 22.5% 0% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A 256 ft. N/A Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 10 ft. N/A Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 201 ft. N/A Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) N/A 48 ft. N/a Zoning compliance Requires a height waiver of 13 feet The sketch plan shows a fair bit of detail in overall site design and layout, including access drive off of Shelburne Road, building location, parking lot, combination trash/recycling enclosure, stormwater pond/infiltration areas; a one acre lot subdivided off for future commercial use; 50’ stream buffer areas; a sidewalk leading from Shelburne Road to the rear of the apartment building, generic planting plan, a community garden and walking pathway leading down to Bartlett Brook and then back up to the garden…although a fair distance away from the building, and with no apparent water source; any subsequent preliminary/final submittals must also include the usual required details such as tree planting/landscaping plan and budget, utility cabinets, exterior lights, bike rack, snow storage areas, and the like… a proposed fire hydrant is shown, and as always, the number and location of these (and other related life safety matters) must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. Density The overall lot size of 9.14 acres allows a maximum density of 63 units at 7 units/acre and 63 units are proposed. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. Please see below for site plan review standards… whether this demonstrates innovative design and layout, etc, remains to be seen… B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. N/A C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. 142 parking spaces are required and proposed for 63 dwelling units. The access drive will be shared with the adjoining one-acre proposed commercial lot. D. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. This does not appear to apply here. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This criterion is met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. This is an issue to be considered and analyzed. The proposed building is to be 48 ft. in height, 13 ft. taller than the 35 foot limit otherwise permitted. The Board should discuss the granting of the height waiver. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Any subsequent utility plans submitted must clarify this. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. To be considered and reviewed; no architectural elevations are yet submitted. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff recommends that the access road serving this residential building and the commercial lot, be constructed to City street standards anticipating that this street would continue through the adjacent property to the east and connect to Green Mountain Drive. See further discussion below. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch Noted above. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. Shown on plan. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Generic landscaping is shown; more detailed plans must be submitted for preliminary/final plat review. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The only modification requested is a height waiver of 13 feet. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Other than the site-related details described herein, there are likely no changes that would alter any prior decision that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Some of these standards simply must be met; others are more subjective and will require more in depth analysis and review in preliminary and final plat review. That said, the clear purpose of sketch plan review is to offer clarity and guidance to an applicant as to the likely approvability of a proposed project, and to identify any stumbling blocks and/or improvements needed at this preliminary stage of project design. All of these PUD standards should be addressed by the applicant, at least in general terms, if the Board is to be able to offer helpful guidance. The application materials are for this site only, and offer little or no neighborhood context by which to consider these issues (especially the proposed height waiver, and its relationship in scale to surrounding properties). It will be helpful to explore with the applicant their plans for the other commercial lot, to determine whether they have considered, and how might be accommodated, reasonable interaction between these properties so that the residents of the proposed dwelling units do not just end up looking out onto the back side of a future commercial building and its parking lot. It will also be useful to consider whether the new access drive should actually be a public street, or at least have that option reserved, especially if/when a connection to the property to the rear becomes reasonable, feasible, or necessary in order to create interconnection with Green Mountain Drive. If so, that would require reservation of (or irrevocable dedication of) necessary right of way, and clarity in roadway design so that the street and the sidewalk (but not stormwater ponds) lie within that ROW; it might also require prospective future redesign of the access/parking for the apartment building. Further, and although a detail not traditionally part of sketch plan review, it is worth considering removal of the box elders, and replacement with a more beautiful, durable tree. Box elders are hardy, but are generally considered a “weed tree” with branches prone to breakage. Certain other existing, mature trees either near buildings or other site work will require great protection and care during construction if they are going to survive. This includes both obvious, above ground construction, as well as installation of underground utilities (water, sewer, electric…) that are not illustrated on a site plan but which can create great disruption in root zones. Similar consideration must be given to soil compaction by heavy equipment. Absent such care, mature trees shown on the plans may well not survive. The community garden is a great idea, although located quite a distance from the building, and should have a water source available if it is to be successful. This type of ‘active’ open space can be a great benefit for CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch residents, whether as traditional garden plots, an ‘edible orchard’ of fruit or nut trees or shrubs, or as created in a recent case, a dog park. Similar use might be considered for the front yard of the building, perhaps at least with one or more picnic tables and a barbeque pit/grill area… 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District and as such must comply with the relevant standards. The preliminary plat plans should be in compliance with these standards when submitted. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Robert Bouchard, Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC – 1840 SPEAR STREET MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-14-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master Plan application #MP-14-01 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend a previously approved master plan for a multi-phase 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of specifying that for the approval of footprint lots for two (2) unit and three (3) unit multi-family dwellings the only review necessary would be final plat review, 1840 spear Street. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. South Village Communities, LLC filed application MP-14-01 to amend a prior master plan approval, specifying that for the approval of footprint lots for two (2) unit and three (3) unit multi-family dwellings the only review necessary would be final plat review, 1840 Spear Street. 2. The application was received on April 24, 2014. 3. T he applicant was represented by Robin Jeffers. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. 5. The applicant submitted a one page site plan entitled, “Spear Street and Allen Road South Burlington, VT Master Plat Plan” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated August, 2004. 6. The DRB held a public hearing on May 20, 2014. 7. The previous master plan approvals were #MP-04-01 and #MP-05-02 8. Nothing is changing in this project as approved previously, aside from the proposed procedural matter as described above. MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT Pursuant to Section 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as the SBLDRs), the Development Review Board shall require a master plan for any application of more than ten (10) dwelling units in the Southeast Quadrant. This application may, at the applicant’s request, be combined with preliminary subdivision plat review. The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously and shall make separate findings of fact as to the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MS-14-05 master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plat. 15.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations govern Master Plan review and approval. As the master plan may be combined with the preliminary plat, many of the items required are included in the preliminary plat, and do not necessitate redundant mention in this paragraph. There are some items which are exclusively tied to the master plan process which staff will try to distinguish below. Section 15.07 (D) (5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action, and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit. Based on the authority granted above, the Board will specify that all requests for the approval of footprint lots for two (2) unit and three (3) unit multi-family dwellings will only need final plat review. DECISION Motion by___________________, seconded by_______________________ to approve Master Plan application #MP-14-01 of South Village Communities LLC, subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The Master Plan is hereby amended such that any request for the approval of footprint lots for two (2) unit and three (3) unit multi-family dwellings shall only need final plat review. 4. Any changes to the Master Plan plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Art Klugo – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking- yea nay abstain not present CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MS-14-05 Motion carried by a vote of X – Y – Z Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 15 April 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair, B. Miller, M. Behr, (arrived late), D. Parsons, J. Smith Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Marshall, E. Herman, L. Michaels, E. Farrell, F. Kochman, M. Young, J. Carroll, T. Dodge, T. DiPietro, R. Marvin, J. Booth, S. Homsted, R. Davy, A. Gill, N. Beck, M. Couture 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that he had spoken with the City Council last week regarding filling the empty seats on the Board and also about changes to the LDRs and what they will mean. 2. Continued Conditional Use application #CU-14-02 of Hillview Design Collaborative, LLC, to: 1) demolish the single family dwelling at 3 Cedar Court, 2) construct a 1,201 sq. dft. addition to the existing 1,700 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 88 Central Avenue, 3) create a 431 sq. ft. accessory residential unit in the expanded home, and 4) merge the two lots at 88 Central Avenue & 3 Cedar Court: Mr. Beck noted that they are building an addition to the house and incorporating the second floor of 3 Cedar Court house into the Central Ave. house. The bottom floor of 3 Cedar Court will still be a rental unit. Mr. Barritt noted the main issue had been parking. Mr. Beck said it will continue as it always had with the tenants parking elsewhere. The applicant showed a footprint of the existing and planned situations. Buildings will line up with the street in front. Mr. Beck noted they will have less lot coverage under this plan. Mr. Barritt noted receipt of letters from the Fire District Prudential Committee and from neighbor Jill Entis both expressing no objection to the plan. Mr. Belair noted the plan meets the setbacks from Potash Brook. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-05 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to amend a previously approved 14,878 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 2 amendment consists of constructing a 26,866 sq. ft. addition, 35 Thompson Street: Mr. Marshall noted that the plans are very similar to what was presented at Sketch Plan review. The project is in the Meadowland Business Park and consists of repositioning the front of the existing building to be more inviting. Mr. Marshall noted there had been a question of whether a height waiver would be needed. They have shrunk the building vertically to avoid the need for a waiver, but if a 6 inch waiver does become necessary, they will return to the Board. Ms. Hermann noted that there are a number of added skylights recommended by Efficiency Vermont. Mr. Marshall added that they will also replace existing lights with LEDs. Mr. Gruneveld, owner of the building, said it would be very ineffective to do solar at this point. They may consider it at a later date. Ms. Herman showed a rendering of the proposed building. There were no issues raised by the Board. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-06 of F & M Development Co., LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight buildings, 2) a 91 unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the-fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell identified the building as the Bacon Street Lofts. Landscaping was approved but was planted in a slightly different space. The plan is to cut off the west end of the berm and add it to lot #1 to provide a small dog park for residents. Three benches will be along the pathway on lot #10. As a consequence of this, the community garden space shrinks in size. Mr. Farrell noted there is not a lot of interest among tenants in the garden space; there is more interest in the dog park. Pets will not be allowed unattended in the pet area. Mr. Farrell was OK with having the City Arborist look at the area. (Mr. Behr arrived at this point of the meeting) Mr. Kochman said he opposes the application as the berm was a “negotiated” item. He specifically objects to changing a boundary line that he negotiated. He added that he and Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 3 Farrell have met and are close to resolving their differences. Mr. Carroll, representing the owner of the adjacent lot, said the owners would like to review the site plan to be sure everything that should be there is there. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-14-05 of Kingdom Ventures, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-building and mixed-use complex. The amendment consists of converting 2,750 sq. ft. of child care facility use to a tavern/night club use, 7 Fayette Road: Mr. Carroll said this is part of a large PUD. He showed the surrounding businesses. The PUD has extensive underground and rear parking. They plan to put an attractive facade door near the parking. The Fire Chief has said he is OK with this. They will “advertise” the underground parking spaces (which require walking upstairs to access the businesses). There is also a rear outdoor staircase for use of vendors. Mr. Carroll also noted there is a logic to reversing the flow of traffic in the parking garage. Mr. Dodge said the tavern is more of a pub with arcade games, etc. Their target market is 25- 55 year old. Peak hours of operation are 6-9 pm., a little later on weekends. They plan to feature local brews. Mr. Carroll noted they would also like to do the same kind of traffic circulation modification for the Chinese restaurant. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-02 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval for a project described as the rehabilitation of existing stormwater infrastructure to conform to the State of Vermont’s “best fix” standards, Hayes Avenue: Mr. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent, this project was previous approved in 2011 and was constructed. They failed to get a zoning permit. The absence of a CO has caused issues for residents. He showed the location of the project and noted that the same situation applies to the next two applications on the agenda. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 4 7. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-03 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval to alter the existing grades by constructing three stormwater ponds and the rehabilitation of an existing pond, Ridgewood Drive & 911 Dorset Street: Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-04 of the City of So. Burlington for after-the-fact approval for stormwater improvements consisting of: 1) stream bank stabilization, 2) flood plain restoration, 3) constructing a new stormwater pond in the Butler Farms neighborhood, and 4) reconstructing two stormwater ponds in the Oak Creek neighborhood, Moss Glen Lane & Butler Drive: Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Design Review Application #DR-14-01 of Venue Nightclub to alter the design of an existing building used as a nightclub. The building design alteration consists of replacing a window with a fire door, 5 Market Street: Mr. Couture showed a picture of what is proposed. The alteration faces the back of the Blue Mall and is being done at the request of the Fire Marshall. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-08 of Hergenrother Industries for a planned unit development to: 1) subdivide a 34.5 acre lot into two lots of 1.4 acres and 33.1 acres, and 2) construct a 25,000-27,000 sq. ft. general office building on the 1.4 acre lot, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Homsted said the applicant will be consolidating all of its companies into this building. There will be 3 floors with the realty brokerage on the first floor, the development unit on the second floor and the foundation/things done for the community on the third floor. He distributed building elevation to the Board. The building is intended to be an “expression of the business’ creative side.” It will have significant use of glass with vertical glass on both sides of the entrance leading to a 2-story atrium inside. The building will address the street with a door that opens into the atrium. There is also an exterior terrace. There will be an exterior connection to pedestrian/bikeways. A reinforced gypsum product will be used for the exterior with corrugated metal paneling for a very modern look. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 5 Mr. Homsted said the building will be placed close to Kennedy Drive. He showed the location of a potential city street between this building and the adjacent O’Brien project. The Kennedy Drive curb cut was chosen to align with other streets. Parking has been minimized based on the company’s need. The building is located on sandy soils, and they anticipate doing all stormwater control on-site. Some treatment will be provided at the parking islands. Sewer and water will also serve future connections. Mr. Barritt expressed concern with the small traffic island in the entranceway. The applicant felt this could be eliminated. Mr. Homsted noted that the Public Works director supports the right turn in and out. Mr. Behr said this is very compact site, and the applicant should plan for what would happen if they were not longer the building’s occupants. He added that the Board can’t approve more than a 25% parking waiver. Mr. Homsted noted that concurrent with this project is s project of the O’Brien’s. They may want to do a dense residential/commercial development which will allow some large areas to be preserved. Mr. Michaels, representing the O’Briens, said they have put a lot of effort into this. They consider this project to be an “entree” to the O’Brien project. They do not yet want to give their project a “public airing,” but he showed some elements of it (location of parks, housing, commercial/possible small retail space). Mr. Behr said that makes the current application more palatable, and he is more comfortable with it. He wanted to see more details and felt the applicant is “pushing the envelope” now. The applicant asked if getting close to the 25% parking waiver is OK or should they look to future shared parking with the adjacent project. Mr. Miller said that seeing something of an overall plan would give him more comfort with the 25% waiver. Other members agreed. They suggested another sketch plan review showing how this might fit into the surrounding concept. They also agreed there were a lot of “positives” to the plan. Mr. Miller moved to continue the sketch plan application to 6 May 2014. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-14-07 of O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc., for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) constructing a three unit multi-family dwelling, and 3) constructing a four unit multi-family dwelling, 636 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Michaels presented elevations and renderings of the proposed dwellings with plantings DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 6 (including existing trees). There will be a kind of “courtyard” between the two buildings. Mr. Michaels also showed the location of a 20-foot easement for a pedestrian/bike path. Mr. Belair noted there is a condition that this easement be shown on the plan. Mr. Michaels said they will talk with the neighbor about a possible stockade fence. Mr. Gill added that they will add a vinyl fence to match the existing fence at the dumpster location. There will also be a red cedar stockade fence back further and vinyl fencing between patios. Mr. Gill advised the Public Works Director agrees that the access works with the addition of a STOP sign. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously 12. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-01 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 12) the subdivision of a 29.329 acre parcel developed with one single family dwelling into two lots of 5.3 acres and 24.09 acres and 2) developing the 5.3 acre parcel with nine single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that staff recommends continuing this application to 6 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-01 to 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sketch plan application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft., 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 set restaurant building and constructing 9,200 sq. ft. retail & restaurant building, 1 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that staff recommends continuing this application to 6 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-13 to 6 May 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Sketch plan application #SD-14-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 5-story, 63 unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 7 Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance to 20 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue SD-14-09 to 20 May 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Minutes of 18 March 2014: It was noted that in the middle of page 2, the concern was with the cul-de-sac’s proximity to Dorset Street. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 18 March 2014 as amended. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. ` 16. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. _____________________________ Clerk _____________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE 8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 MAY 2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 May 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; T. Meaker, William Wilson, J. & B. Bradley, M. Janswold, G. & B. Allen, B. Wilson, P. O’Leary, R. Jeffers, G. Lang, H. Tremblay, M. Choppa, A. Gill, N. Hyman, L. Michaels, S. Erics, A. Hergenrother, S. Homsted, B. Avery, P. Kahn, G. Bartlett 1. Announcements: Mr. Barritt welcomed new Board member John Wilking. 2. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-14-11 of Elizabeth & Joel Bradley for a planned unit development to add one dwelling unit to an accessory structure on two lots developed with a retail building and a mixed use building (general office, personal service & 4 dwelling units), 1197 & 1203 Williston Road: Mr. Barritt noted that everything had been resolved in terms of traffic issues. Mr. Belair said staff had no further issues. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Final Plat Application #SD-14-12 of Thomas & Pamela Meaker to resubdivide two adjoining lots such that one lot will be reduced in area and the other lot will be increased in area, 21 & 25 Gilbert Street: Neither the Board nor staff had any issues with the application. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-14-07 of William Wilson to amend a previously approved plan for a 1,450 sq. ft. medical office building. The amendment consists of converting the building to general office use, 2-4 San Remo Drive: Mr. Wilson said the previous tenant was a chiropractor who was in the building for 18 years. The new tenant will be a mortgage company. Mr. Belair noted the building is in the design review district. The Board can require an upgrade to the exterior of the building, but staff has no recommendation to do that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 6 MAY 2014, PAGE 2 Mr. Wilson said they just put in new windows and doors. The building has an ADA access inside. The plan is to put an access ramp across the back. The Board will see those plans this summer. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-14-10 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previous plan for Phase I of a 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of amending condition #8 of final plat approval #SD-08-04 to allow lots #31 and #32 to have a curb cut onto a public street, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers showed the location on the plan and noted there were no planned curb cuts due to an oversight. The plan is for one curb cut on Chipman and the other on Frost. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Design Review Application #DR-14-02 of University Mall, LLC, to amend a previously approved Master Signage Permit. The amendment consists of including additional colors to the list of approved colors, 155 Dorset Street: Ms. Tremblay said the plan is to add purple and orange to the color list as they are the colors in the logo of the new tenant. Mr. Barritt asked to restrict those colors to this building. The applicant had no issue with that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close the hearing. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-08 of Hergenrother Industries for a planned unit development to: 1) subdivide a 34.5 acre lot into two lots of 1.4 acres and 33.1 acres, and 2) construct a 25,000-27,000 sq. ft. general office building on the 1.4 acre lot, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Wilking noted that Mr. Hergenrother is currently a tenant in a building he manages. He did not see any conflict of interest. Members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 6 MAY 2014, PAGE 3 Mr. Michaels showed the location of the proposed development with existing streets. He noted that the DRB had asked to see a future concept with connectivity to Old Farm Road and Eldridge. He then showed the location of parking for the Hergenrother building and noted other buildings will have underground parking as well. A 1.5 acre park will serve two condo associations. There will be a walking trail around the stormwater area to connect to other paths and trails. They will try to maintain as many trees in front and around the stormwater pond as possible. The hope is to reduce parking and create a shared parking situation. There will be “day use” and “evening use” types of buildings. Mr. Michaels said it will be their responsibility to prove there is enough parking when they come back with the other uses. Mr. Wilking said he can foresee future problems. Mr. Hergenrother said two floors of the building will be for agents who are out of the building a good deal of the time. Mr. Barritt asked if the applicant had talked with the people at Windridge. Mr. Michaels said they talked with both condo associations. They had no issues and were pleased with the plan. The proposed park will serve those condos. Mr. Behr said he sees this as the first piece of build-out of this area. He felt the applicant is asking for a “leap of faith.” He didn’t want to see this set a precedent with regard to setbacks. He added that he liked the plan for this building and the pedestrian friendliness. He just wanted to raise a “yellow flag.” Mr. Michaels stressed that they want this to look good. Mr. Parsons had no issue with the setback waivers as it is where the city is going with regard to pedestrian access. He also had no big issue with the parking waiver. Mr. Barritt felt the setbacks and building height were OK. No other issues were raised. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-01 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) the subdivision of a 29.39 acre parcel developed with one single family dwelling into two lots of 5.3 acres and 24.09 acres, and 2) developing the 5.3 acre parcel with nine single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street: Mr. O’Leary showed the previous plan. He noted that the new plan has slid the main entrance to the south. He showed the connection to the 60-foot right-of-way and noted that Mr. Conner had suggested better definition of the backyards. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 6 MAY 2014, PAGE 4 Mr. O’Leary also showed a potential connection to Dorset Farms. He noted they have another potential plan (sketches 1 and 2) to respond to Mr. Conner’s comments. #1 slides the road further south with the connection to the 60-foot right-of-way squared off. #2 shows the road continued to Dorset Farms and other potential roads connecting to the 60-foot right-of-way. Every unit would back up to open space. Mr. O’Leary said they prefer the curved road. He stressed that they have rights only to this piece of property. Mr. Behr said that when you have a property this big, it is important to lay the groundwork for what may come down the road. He didn’t want to preclude a good development. He liked sketch #2 which allows for more flexibility. Mr. Barritt noted that Mr. Klugo feels the city isn’t served well by these “slivers.” He agreed and felt this will continue to happen. Mr. Behr said you can’t force a master plan. He felt that what has been shown gives him confidence this will be developed with coherence, and that’s the best the Board can get. Mr. O’Leary noted the owner is adamant about avoiding Act 250. Mr. Parsons felt it is important to work within the existing regulations. Mr. Allen, a trustee for the property at 155 Dorset Street, noted that is a private right-of-way and the city is not a grantee. He noted that the meadow floods 4 or 5 times a year. The culvert under the right-of-way is undersized for existing conditions. Mr. Allen also felt that the connection to Dorset Farms will be a shortcut for people going to Burlington. He said he wouldn’t want live with all that traffic. He also felt that 9 houses in a cluster are not in keeping with what is there now. Mr. Hyman showed the location of his house and noted he is totally flooded now. He felt the development could impact the ability of water to flow under the culvert. Mr. Barritt said the engineer has to figure out how to handle the water. He suggested Mr. Hyman may want to have an engineer look at the plans for him. Mr. Behr said nothing in the LDRs to prevent the Board from viewing this positively. The Board just needs to be comfortable that the next steps can be handled comfortably. He felt that what the Board has been shown provides that framework. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Wilking felt the development had the potential to be better, possibly with something to buffer the view. He felt either version of the road was OK. Members were OK with the applicant going to preliminary plat. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 6 MAY 2014, PAGE 5 9. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-13 of Halverson Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft., 275 seat restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of razing the 275 seat restaurant building and constructing a 9200 sq. ft. retail and restaurant building, 1 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance until 20 May. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-13 until 20 May 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes No minutes were presented. 11. Other Business: Extension Requests: a. Request for extension approval, 27 Commerce Avenue: Mr. Miller moved to grant a 6-month extension to SD-13-27, 27, Commerce Avenue. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Request for extension approval, 66 Bowdoin Street: Mr. Miller moved to grant a 6-month extension to SD-13-24, 66 Bowdoin Street. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk ________________________________, Date